Union County board upholds county valuations in three appeals by Hayes Norris

The Union County Board of Equalization and Review voted to accept county valuations for three parcels owned by That 4, Inc., represented at the hearing by Hayes Norris. County staff presented recent comparable-sales analyses and adjustments; Norris had challenged the assessments using sales he pulled from the county’s online property-picker tool.

Norris told the board he based his valuation arguments on sales the county tool returned. “I pulled up all the comps using your property picker tool, and, that's how I chose this,” he said during oral remarks. He argued the county's assessments rose sharply and said he used the tool to find comparable houses of similar size and quality.

County staff member Dana Chastain responded that county analysts reviewed multiple comparable sales, excluded some outliers and problem sales (for example, listings with realtor notes of “cash only” or “need[ing] repair”), and narrowed their analysis to recent, relevant transactions. Chastain said the county’s analysis produced values that were substantially higher than the taxpayer’s figures but reflected sales judged valid for the January 1, 2025 valuation date. “We do feel like these comps are good comps and we were able to reduce it to, 611,600,” Chastain said when discussing the county’s analysis for one parcel.

The contested properties are three adjacent parcels the transcript identifies as parts of a 28-acre holding. Norris said he and his family bought three tracts and built homes: he said one parcel contains a primary home he moved into in 2009, that he spent roughly $350,000–$400,000 on construction (approximate), and that the parcel he occupies has about 5.3 acres (approximate). He said a second occupied house is held by a family member for a nominal rental and a third parcel contains an unfinished dwelling the family stopped completing in about 2011 because of funds. Norris repeatedly told the board he used the county’s public tool to find comparables and did not intend to include sales outside the statutory sales-date cutoff.

Board members and county staff discussed the date range of comparable sales and the effect of older sales on a 2025 revaluation. County staff explained the property-picker tool allows taxpayers to change its default search period; staff said the county’s analysis used sales within an applicable recent range for the 2025 valuation and excluded sales with realtor notes indicating atypical circumstances. Board members asked about lot sizes and construction costs, and whether particular sales (for example, a Riggins Road sale identified in the file) had characteristics that made them inappropriate as comparables.

After deliberation, the board approved motions to accept the county’s recommended values for each parcel by voice vote. The board’s actions were recorded as follows: for hearing number 8 the board accepted the county valuation of $611,600; for hearing number 9 the board accepted the county valuation of $533,100; and for hearing number 10 the board accepted the county valuation of $538,000. The board’s votes were taken by voice; no roll-call tallies for individual members were recorded in the transcript.

The transcript shows Norris has previously taken at least one parcel to the state Property Tax Commission (Raleigh) and reached a settlement on that appeal before a hearing there. The board chair told Norris that written notice of the board’s decisions would be mailed, and that Norris could remain for deliberation or wait for the written outcome.

Why it matters: property valuation decisions determine tax liabilities and can substantially affect owners of rural, acreage-sized parcels where house size, lot configuration and the availability of comparable recent sales vary across the county. The hearing highlighted how the county and taxpayers use the same public database but may select different date ranges and comparables when forming opinions of value.

The board moved on to other items after the three hearings and adjourned; Norris left after the board said decisions would be provided in writing.